The CMA has published its Annual Report on the UK’s concurrency arrangements, which came into effect in their current form in 2014.  Eight sectoral regulators have competition law powers in the UK, in addition to the CMA as the primary competition authority.[1] 

On May 26, 2023, the first reading of the Government’s amendment to the draft of the Competition Enforcement Act dated April 5, 2023 (“Government Draft 11th Amendment”) was held in Parliament.  The Competition Enforcement Act will amend the German Act Against Restraints of Competition (“ARC”) for the 11th time.[1]  The Government has proposed further changes to the Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Climate Action’s draft published in September 2022 (“Draft 11th Amendment”).[2]  This blog post outlines the changes proposed by the government to the Draft 11th Amendment, following on from an earlier blog post on the Draft 11th Amendment (available here).

On June 1, 2023, the Commission published revised Research & Development and Specialization Block Exemption Regulations (“R&D BER” and “Specialization BER”, together the “HBERs”)[1] , as well as revised Guidelines on Horizontal Cooperation (“Horizontal Guidelines”).[2]  The new HBERs exempt certain agreements from the prohibition of Article 101(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (“TFEU”), subject to specific conditions, and accordingly create a so-called “safe harbor” for certain forms of horizontal cooperation.  Relatedly, the Horizontal Guidelines aim to guide undertakings in the interpretation and application of the revised HBERs, and thereby in their assessment of “various common types of horizontal cooperation agreements.”[3]

The UK Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has identified “roll-up” acquisitions (the acquisition of several targets in the same sector) by financial investors, such as private equity firms, as an enforcement priority.  In this post, we discuss the CMA’s enforcement focus, its recent decisional practice, and implications for merging parties.  The main takeaways are:

On April 20, 2023, the Commission adopted the 2023 Merger Simplification Package (the “2023 Package”) designed to streamline its procedure under the EU Merger Regulation.[1]  In particular, the 2023 Package (1) expands the types of concentration eligible for treatment under the simplified procedure, (2) streamlines the review of both simplified and non-simplified cases, and (3) simplifies the notification process.

On March 27, 2023, the European Commission (the “Commission”) announced it would revise its 2008 Guidance on enforcement priorities regarding Article 102 TFEU[1] (the “2008  Guidance”).  The Commission has amended its 2008 Guidance in a Communication and Annex.  It has also launched a consultation seeking feedback on the adoption of new Guidelines on exclusionary abuses of dominance that the Commission intends to adopt in 2025 after publishing a draft in 2024.  While the amendments in the 2008 Guidance bring it closer to the case law, they show the Commission seeking more discretion and leeway in its investigations.

On August 30, 2022, the Federal Cartel Office (“FCO”) published its Annual Report 2021/2022.[1]  Andreas Mundt, the President of the FCO, pointed out two areas of the FCO’s focus: First,  the collusion of undertakings under the guise of inflation and Russia’s war against Ukraine.  Second, to use the flexibility of antitrust law to allow for a degree of cooperation that is necessary in times of crisis.  Moreover, the FCO continues to pursue its digital agenda for the digital economy and the protection of consumer rights. 

Last year we noted that U.S. antitrust enforcement was in a period of nearly unprecedented public attention and policy debate, and also that the Biden Administration seemed likely to launch significant new policy initiatives as the year progressed. 

In a ruling dated January 10, 2023, the French Cour de cassation quashed an order of the Paris Court of Appeals that had annulled the seizure of attorney-client communications during a consumer law dawn raid on the grounds that they were covered by “legal privilege,” thereby excluding the application of the concept under French law.[1] Although the case relates to alleged breaches of consumer law, its reasoning can be transposed to matters relating to competition law dawn raids.